Took long enough

[Pyrate Jim]

U.S. Startup Unveils World’s First Mass-Produced Nuclear Reactor, Set to Transform Power Delivery in Remote Areas

This was a study in school back in the 70's. The US Military already had them in submarines and aircraft carriers. They even trucked one to a military base in Greenland.
Students were tasked with designs to run steam turbines heating the water through radioactive decay small enough to run a farm.
An altruistic dream at the time. I believe stifled by those who wanted to retain a monopoly.
50 years ago, I studied this. (then went into organic chemistry) So I know it can be done - It has been done.
To hear it may be mass produced is something I thought I'd never see.

[BrickHaus]

My last employer developed the upending crane for Nuscales MPBR. The reactor technology is coming a long way in this new era. It's awesome to see this mass produced competition coming to market.

[pghp8ntballer]

So I have to ask… how bad is it when there is a catastrophic failure (meltdown)? What level of radiation is there? What is the worse case scenario? I’m not against this at all. But until there is zero possibility of radiation/contamination beyond unsafe/normal background levels in any possible failure situation, this is questionable at best. I’m excited to hear this is being worked on and making good progress. I’m all for energy independence, either personal or national, but I certainly have my concerns about safety of a commercial micro-reactor if it’s not truly 110% safe.

[DocsMachine]

I’m all for energy independence, either personal or national, but I certainly have my concerns about safety of a commercial micro-reactor if it’s not truly 110% safe.

-Nothing is 100% safe. Paintball isn't 100% safe. Flying isn't 100% safe.

The simple fact here is that the world needs more energy. If you believe we must wean ourselves off fossil fuels, then the only option is nuclear. We've dammed up most all the damable rivers and streams, wind turbines or solar can't provide steady power, and oil, gas and coal are icky-poo, so what's that leave? The only source of power that's steady and cost effective- and can provide the terawatts we need- is nuclear.

And, up until very recently, the newest reactor in the US was finished in 1976, and used technology designed in the 1960s. Tech has rolled on- what if we'd put as much R&D into nuclear in the last fifty years, as we've put into cars, phones and the internet?

Modern designs for small modular reactors (SMRs) can't "melt down"- as in, using the laws of physics, not just some really good mechanical failsafe.

Yes, there are hazards and drawbacks... just as there are for any generating plant. But the simple, realistic fact is that there are no other options.

Doc.

[pghp8ntballer]

You misunderstood my point. I’m referring to human error and upper management making money based decisions for micro-reactor maintenance/repair in future scenarios. I definitely understand that our (US) power infrastructure is not as modern as it should be. I don’t have an issue with nuclear power for the most part.I haven’t gone a-googling about SMRs and don’t intend to. Nothing is truly safe, but if a SMR can’t melt down then great. If a small nuclear reactor can cause a large amount of harm if not properly maintained, then that is a problem. People will be people, and the people are the problem.

[Pyrate Jim]

Ever feel warm in direct sunlight? That much radiation.
Ever hear of a meltdown on a nuclear submarine in the last half century we've been using them? I haven't.
It's not even close to a reactor powering multiple States or even an aircraft carrier. It doesn't contain enough radionuclide mass to "melt down".
Even "solar energy" panels depend on radiation.

[coyote]

The USSR has had " nuclear accidents" on submarines. They all seem to be "human errors" while working on reactor cores. Nothing like that has happened in decades.

Knowing about the lack of safety at Chernobyl it's easy to presume those exposures followed the same unsafe culture.

[pghp8ntballer]

Ever feel warm in direct sunlight? That much radiation.
Ever hear of a meltdown on a nuclear submarine in the last half century we've been using them? I haven't.
It's not even close to a reactor powering multiple States or even an aircraft carrier. It doesn't contain enough radionuclide mass to "melt down".
Even "solar energy" panels depend on radiation.

This might be a better question… how much radiation can be leaked from these small units? Is it an actual possibility? Obviously these would never be as bad as a full powerplant could be. How does the size of the unit in the article compare to a carrier or sub unit?

[coyote]

So I have to ask… how bad is it when there is a catastrophic failure (meltdown)? What level of radiation is there? What is the worse case scenario? I’m not against this at all. But until there is zero possibility of radiation/contamination beyond unsafe/normal background levels in any possible failure situation, this is questionable at best. I’m excited to hear this is being worked on and making good progress. I’m all for energy independence, either personal or national, but I certainly have my concerns about safety of a commercial micro-reactor if it’s not truly 110% safe.

If you apply these same standards to our prevalent conventional sources of power they fail.

No power source is completely safe. If you look too "green" sources like solar and wind you need to include the mining of battery specific elements like lithium. Extracting those from the earth cause major pollution. That too impacts the health of plants animals and ecosystems. Under the best circumstances about 15 percent of the worlds net power can come from "renewables"

There have been less than 400 deaths worldwide that are directly related to nuclear accidents. There are certainly thousands of indirect deaths and health problems related to those incidents. Sources disagree on the numbers.

Meanwhile air pollution causes millions of deaths annually. 8 million plus in 2021 according to UNICEF.

Modern nuclear power is very safe. The fuel is also recyclable. In a world where our power needs are growing at an alarming rate it's a necessary option. It's much safer than burning fossil fuels, wood and dung. That's the demographic that needs to be affected the most. Cheap abundant energy that is an improvement to setting organic matter on fire.

We won't get "safe". We can get" much safer".

[Pyrate Jim]

This might be a better question… how much radiation can be leaked from these small units? Is it an actual possibility? Obviously these would never be as bad as a full powerplant could be. How does the size of the unit in the article compare to a carrier or sub unit?

In the classes I took decades ago, mind you, the theoretical mass was limited to about the size of a dice cube. Finding which isotopes worked best.
The article did not specify dimensions, mass or element used. The "active" part could be as small as a postage stamp or large as a Volkswagen.

You have to separate the concepts. Atomic bombs are bad because...Radiation. Yet, all life on Earth needs radiation to survive. Photosynthesis and all that.
Almost Zoroastrian in its dichotomy. Much like water. You can't live without it, but too much can drown you.

[COB]

I worked with top Physicists at NBS in the early 80's, doing radiation detection research and development. We did a field trip to a local private manufacturing facility that used radiation to create the powder for printers ink used in newspapers. We sent test sample through their machine to measure the radiation output. Their in-house testing procedures were so bad that they were off by factors of tens. There is a much larger risk of catastrophic failure in private unregulated hands. I agree that we need a solution to our energy needs, but allowing minimally trained people to operate radiation sources is a recipe for absolute failure.

[DocsMachine]

“Can’t melt down using the laws of physics.” Show your work, please.

-Here, let me Google that for you. The term you're looking for is called passive nuclear safety:

Such design features tend to rely on the engineering of components such that their predicted behaviour would slow down, rather than accelerate the deterioration of the reactor state; they typically take advantage of natural forces or phenomena such as gravity, buoyancy, pressure differences, conduction or natural heat convection to accomplish safety functions without requiring an active power source.

There is a much larger risk of catastrophic failure in private unregulated hands. I agree that we need a solution to our energy needs, but allowing minimally trained people to operate radiation sources is a recipe for absolute failure.

-Who says they'd be minimally trained? Do airlines use "minimally trained" jet pilots? Do hospitals use "minimally trained" neurosurgeons? Do the computer chip makers use "minimally trained" technicians in their silicon foundries?

Modern reactor designs, as above, may not need Rickover-qualified Nuke Techs, but that doesn't mean they'd be hiring out-of-work housepainters and Krogers bagboys.

At the base of it, it's a simple binary equation: We, as a culture, need more electrical power- and if things like AI keep on the same route, orders of magnitude more power.

There are no more significant rivers to dam, there's a limit to how many wind turbines we can put up, there's a hard limit to how much solar can supply and how steadily, coal and natural gas are persona non grata now, and we can't produce enough sunflower seeds to feed all the gerbils on running wheels it'd take just to power most of downtown Cleveland.

Fusion is- and will likely remain- 20-50 years off, where it's been for 20-50 years. So what's that leave?

If you want a great deal of constant/nonintermittent energy, a supply in the multi-terawatt class, and demand it be at least carbon-neutral... sorry, but nuclear is the only such solution.

Doc.

[COB]

Doc, sorry if the "minimally trained" comment seemed bias, but private industry is in the business of making money. In the beginning they all start out well. The management and staff are well versed and trained in the new product that they created or are making. But then the standards begin to get compromised for the bottom line. Less training time. Less quality control on the human side. A general complacency begins to settle into the work force. And a steep rise in insular thinking begins to take place. Suddenly the QC and HR departments are thinking more about making sure no mistakes are made public, than fixing the underlying issue. Workers and Unions become more protective of their jobs. Demanding more compensations and less concerned with holding themselves accountable for any mistakes or lapses in proper procedures. It's the human factor.
In a small way, just look at Boeing and their recent issues. Inspectors not checking or failing to notice, if bolts are in place and secured. We have seen it in every industry. The fear of the financial consequences becomes the driving force.
I don't have all the answers. Yes, the production of power must make money to sustain the proper and safe operation of the facility and its distribution system. I also believe that we need to find a long-term viable energy solution. However, we must make sure the management of that system is not driven solely by the profit loss ratio. Safety must always be the primary factor.

[pghp8ntballer]

Not disagreeing with anyone here and I’m glad to see more sides of the discussion showing up.

Doc, I wouldn’t have known what to search for to get the info I was thinking of.

Thanks for all the additional info everyone.

[DocsMachine]

It's worth noting that most current reactors operating in the US, were designed in the sixties, and burn about two percent of their fuel. The partially burned rods are then removed and simply stored outside in pools of water.

Why? Because everyone is so afraid of radiation, that they're not allowed to truck the fuel over the road to a reprocessing plant. Building such a plant at every nuclear reactor is not cost effective... so the used fuel, which could be reprocessed to get decades more use out of... just sits.

Also, we could be using "breeder" reactors, that 'burn' the Uranium, and in the process, turns into Plutonium. The Pu could then be re-burned in a different reactor, getting something like an order of magnitude more energy out of the fuel.

Between reprocessing and "breeding", we could be getting literally a hundred times more energy out of a given unit of nuclear fuel, than we are today.

Why aren't we? Fear and politics. The not-unwarranted fear of radiation, and the politics of NIMBY.

So we burn just 2% of what we have, and dump the rest in a poor excuse for storage in the hopes that someday, somebody else can do something with it.

Doc.

[Pyrate Jim]

Why aren't we? Fear and politics. The not-unwarranted fear of radiation, and the politics of NIMBY.

So we burn just 2% of what we have, and dump the rest in a poor excuse for storage in the hopes that someday, somebody else can do something with it.

Doc.

I'm hoping that this start up is that somebody else doing something with it.
While fear of radiation is warranted in large doses, it's heavily exasperated by Hollywood's influence on NIMBY politics.
For most folks, their perception of radiation comes either from films like Godzilla, or the Amazing Colossal Man, or nuclear test footage. Nothing in between.
I do have fears, and hope.

My fears concern maintenance, people trained to handle problems.
People get electrocuted if they don't know wiring. Airplanes fall out of the sky due to lack of competently trained mechanics or pilots.
And much of our education system is not geared toward blue collar employment. No amount of computer code is going to turn a torque wrench.

My hope is that We are learning.
Back in the 1920's, even before we had the Bomb, we figured out that putting Radium in women's cosmetics was bad.
In 1945 we found out just how bad concentrated radioactive elements could be.
In 1956 we discovered that fallout from atomic tests in New Mexico were showing up in Pittsburg and Chicago.
Even globally, modern forensics can determine the age of a carcass by the amount and type of radioactive residue.

Stone age, Bronze age, Iron age, the Dark ages, the Industrial age, the Modern age, the Space age.
The Atomic age. We know how destructive it can be. We can learn to harness it to be constructive as well. I hope.

[Pyrate Jim]

It’s not about the technology. It’s about how the technology works in the human world. And this stuff doesn’t.

So, what does? Work, I mean.
Oil and coal work, but it's a limited resource and a very dirty one.
Wind and solar sound good but hardly produce enough to support itself much less a Nation.
Water driven turbines are effective. However, dams across the Mississippi would stop a lot of river traffic.

Of course, there's always a horse and buggy. We know that works. Well, some of us.
Technology is exclusively the domain of humanity. It has never stopped advancing despite having caused major disasters. Not all nuclear. Union Carbide?
It's always about the technology. (Unless you're Amish.) Created by humans, exploited by humans for the use of humans.

Pick your poison. Whether slowly by pollution of the air and plastics in the oceans, or by strip mining the landscape for those solar panels. Perhaps by radiation.
There are Sailors who spend years living in a metal shell with one of these smaller, portable atomic units.
Which is why I'll give you a like for the Yosemite Sam reference.

[Pyrate Jim]

Something extra.
Small Modular Reactors: Could They Be the Future of Nuclear Energy? | Watch